Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Karmillo
What actualy makes something Art? I never got this.
Even more, What is art? 
Like, at the time being the class im in is full of the type of people who say "holywood is a crap factory, the only good movies are the Independant ones that arnt in the cinemas" so does that mean 'Independance' is art?
Does art have to be entertaining?
If something is good is it not necisseraly art?
I remember going to an art museum and looking through all the crude blobs that were supposed to represent people and objects, but then i seen work done by 'El Greco' but it wasnt the 'meaning' or whatever was behind the painting(it had a boy, a monkey and a fireman/fisherman looking at a candle or something) that interested me, it was the way he could paint light and shadows, so does that mean my mind is "shallow and unartistic" since it was just looks that gained my interest?
I could never get this stuff, I either like something or i didnt, if it was catchy, entertaining, fun or interesting I didnt care, some could make me feel happy/sad or make me think. or they could just be mindles fun. whichever way it was I feel it done what it set out to do, and if it isnt there to entertain you then whats the point?
Art shouldnt be the soul focus when your making something like this, it should come naturaly. Like take blade runner for example, at the end Spoiler:when the android lets go of the dove and it flies up into the the clouds opening up to reveal the blue sky , people saw that as art but it was a mistake, Ridley never meant for it to be like that (he only had one day to finish it so when day began to break out there was nothing he could do)
So what is it that makes art art? is it the Meaning? or how the medium its based on is delivered?(such as the sound for music and visual for film/painting/photography)
and if games are seen as just different mediums of art pulled together why arnt films seen like this? after all it is just Music and photography/painting brought together. If the art in film it combineing those two effectively the wouldnt the art of games be combining these with interactivity effectivly?
God I have so many questions... i strayed off in so many directions...and Im half asleep so no doubt im gonna read over this again next morning and see something I regret 
Well no turning back now..or well there was untill i pushed the submit button...or well there still is since I could delete it....or...
Quiet me
Me |
Look, there IS no definitive definition of "art". I've said this before in a post, but if you want the literal definition of what
visual art is and how it differs with the medium, then I can provide that for you at the very least.
The art historian's definition of the visual, or spatial arts include architecture, sculpture, and painting. A work of art can be defined as a man-made object of aesthetic significance, with a vitality and reality of its own. Regardless of the medium of expression, a work of art is a unique, homogeneous, complex, irreplaceable, nonreproducible, in some ways even mysterious, individual whole. These salient characteristics distinguish a building, sculpture, or painting from the other arts. If a master copies one of his own works, he makes a new creation, another unique object existing in space. A photographer cannot adequately reproduce a work of art because of its three-dimensional nature and specific materials; buildings and sculpture are especially difficult to photograph, although even reproductions of paintings and the graphic arts suffer from the technical limitations of the camera. Moreover, the photographer may be tempted to try to transcend mere recording and create a new work of art by adopting a certain viewpoint, arranging the lighting, or developing the negative with certain values of texture, tone, and color. Hence the spatial arts differ from the other arts - literature, music, the cinema, theatre, and dance. Literature and music can be preserved by translation into handwritten or published form or by memory, the cinema by prints of the original film. The theater and the dance pose different problems. On the one hand, a play or choreography can be preserved by written form or by memory; but on the other, each performance by an actor or dancer can be characterized as an individiaul work of art. However, these performances are man-made actions, not objects of permanent physical reality as are the spatial arts.
Of course, that just barely skims the surface of things because surely it will arouse more questions. If you want to get into the meat of the art world, you have to factor in countless ways to approach, and define, this amazing phenomenon known as "art". There's art theory, art criticism, aestheticism (where you care purely about aesthetics), and many many other ways for approaching art and defining it. So you see, there really is no one definition for what "art" is, it's simply too broad and too generalized a term to try and define in a few sentences. This is why you'll have many different schools of thought and many opposing opinions, but it does not necessarily make one or the other right. What is art to one person may not be art to another, but it does not make either person the right one. They simply define "art" differently, granted they approached the work of art with sound logic and reasoning and not just some dilettantish effort.
Hope that helped clear up some things for you rather than confuse you more...
and sorry for the long post
